Tag Archives: NHTSA

Complaint about proposed underride guard regulation: Not Cost Effective

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

As soon as I read the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Underride Protection on Single Unit Trucks, I could smell trouble.

To begin with, I have questions about NHTSA’s  figures, especially undercounting deaths from underride and the overlooking of possible saved lives from requiring improved underride standards on trailers.  https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=underreporting%20of%20underride%20deaths

Then, this is what I read in NHTSA’s explanation as they spelled out their cost/benefit analysis:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0001

“b. NHTSA’s Cost-Benefit Analysis (Overview)

As part of its evaluation of whether an underride guard requirement should apply to SUTs, NHTSA conducted a cost-benefit analysis of equipping SUTs with rear impacts guards. The analysis is set forth in Appendix A of this preamble, and an overview is provided below. We are requesting comments on the analysis. . . 

Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation (35) identifies $9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).”

Actually, the VSL, as of June 17, 2015, is now $9.4 million. No matter because it still would not be anywhere near the supposed cost of requiring rear impact guards on SUTS (with, of course, certain exempt ones which are already able to prevent underride with their current equipment).

The logical outcome is that the industry will lobby against this rulemaking. I am concerned that cost may too likely win out over preventing countless persons from surviving a truck crash.   https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/rear-ending-a-truck-should-be-a-survivable-crash-why-isnt-it/

As an example of this, see the two most recent Public Comments on this ANPRM — posted November 2, 2015:

  • http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0066 “An agency rule may be arbitrary and capricious if the agency, ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem’. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Without considering the costs to the roads and bridges, any factual determination of the costs and benefits of requiring single unit trucks to include read guards may be unreasonable and could demonstrate that the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.”
  • http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0065“7. By your own estimates in the ANPRM the rear impact guards are not cost effective and there are still additional costs with the proposal you have not included in the ANPRM.
    Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation \35\ identifies
    $9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for
    Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of
    preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL
    in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary
    estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per
    equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will
    not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).As in the analysis for Class 3-8 SUTs shown in Table 2, the
    preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on Class 4-8 SUTs (minimum
    of $55.2 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that
    these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).”

VSL Guidance-2013-2 DOT value of life

DOT VSL Guidance, as of June 17, 2015:  https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL2015_0.pdf

Rebekah photo of crash

GR Crocodile_Tears for Heavy Vehicle Safety 2004

p.s. This battle has a history:

“1974 US Secretary of Transportation says deaths in cars that underride trucks would have to quadruple before underride protection would be considered cost beneficial.” 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=1974+US+Secretary+of+Transportation+says+deaths+in+cars+that+underride+trucks+would+have+to+quadruple+before+underride+protection+would+be+considered+cost+beneficial.

 

Virginia Tech Senior Design Project is Addressing the Need for Stronger Underride Guards; Mid-Semester Progress Report

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

I received a wonderful email this morning with the Mid-Semester Progress Report from the 6-student team of engineering students at Virginia Tech who took on the creation of a better rear underride guard design as their senior capstone project.

In their words, “our team must strive to achieve the perfect design with respect to each specification, ensuring the absolute best final product.” (Sweet words to this mother’s heart!)

We look forward to seeing them in person at the IIHS Vehicle Research Center on May 5, 2016, as they share the results of their dedicated and innovative efforts at the Underride Roundtable.

Here is their 30-page progress report:  Virginia Tech Semi-Trailer Bumper Design Mid Semester Progress Report .

 

1 gertie 2782

I will be praying for the team everyday, including Wayne Carter (Team Facilitator), Daniel Carrasco, Kristine Adriano, Sean Gardner, Andrew Pitt, and Brian Smith–along with Jared Bryson (their Sponsor) and Robin Ott (their Project Advisor).

Save the Date Underride Roundtable

AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety is raising money to support Underride Research efforts:  https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

I remember our trip back from visiting a research & design center in June 2014 and thinking that surely a group of engineers could get together and design better underride protection. It is amazing to watch this unfold.

Join thousands of other people in calling for a move towards zero crash deaths. Sign our Vision Zero Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Examining Ways to Improve Vehicle and Roadway Safety

Truck Safety, , , , , ,

Examining Ways to Improve Vehicle and Roadway Safety – See more at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/examining-ways-improve-vehicle-and-roadway-safety#sthash.F4YzqjVb.dpuf

Joan Claybrook, Consumer Co-chair of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) and former Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), spoke today to the COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, SUBCOMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING AND TRADE:

“It is essential that NHTSA, the agency charged with ensuring the safety of our vehicles and our drivers, be equipped with both the appropriate resources and personnel to confront the myriad of emerging issues presented by new technologies. It is almost incomprehensible that the entire vehicle safety program for the U.S. has a miniscule budget of only $130 million, and it has barely increased over the last six years. It is both unfortunate and unnecessary that this agency is chronically underfunded by Congress even while its critical importance to public health and safety continues to expand. Congress has a moral obligation in the safety title of the six year reauthorization bill to give NHTSA the ability to do its job and to do it effectively. Our lives and those of our families as well as yours literally depend on it.”

 

Victims testify:

Car Safety Wars book cover

Numbers are funny: 1 (crash story) is a tragedy; 1 million (crash stories) is a statistic

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , ,

What a Vision Zero policy means to me: Towards Zero. While at a Sorrow to Strength Conference sponsored by the Truck Safety Coalition this weekend in Washington, DC, I experienced support and understanding by being with other truck crash victim families. But at the same time, I felt the frustration of the same scenario playing out year after year on the roads of our nation while there continues to be a tug of war over truck safety measures.

Even though many have shared their tragic stories on The  Hill and at DOT countless times over the years, still the battle continues unabated. One participant quoted Joseph Stalin in order to describe the attitude that seems to prevail, “A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic.”

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t naively believe that something could be done to result in never ever any crash deaths. What I believe is that a Vision Zero policy–with a vision statement of Zero Crash Deaths & Zero Serious Crash Injuries–would impact decision-making to the extent that, when options were identified, choices would be made and strategies would be followed which would lead ever closer to that vision of zero.

The opposite attitude always ends up compromising human life and health. It gives power to the lure of the almighty dollar and the promise of efficiency and an improved economy. It means that too many people like my daughters, AnnaLeah (17) and Mary (13), are unnecessarily cheated of the opportunity to naturally live out their lives because their lives were deemed too costly to spare.

Yesterday, I was at Panera Bread in Arlington, Virginia, having some breakfast before going to The Hill with other Truck Safety Coalition volunteers to talk with my U.S. Representative and Senator about safety concerns. I saw a poster about Panera’s clean food vision statement/strategy and quickly memorized it:

“No Compromises.

“By the end of 2016, we ‘re removing all artificial preservatives, colors, sweeteners, and flavors from our food.  Learn about our clean food journey and our No No List.”  https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/company/food-policy-no-no-list.html

Are we, as a nation, really more concerned about healthy foods than about the safety of our roads? What will happen with our Truck Safety Legislative No No List?

No no list 003

I shared those thoughts with my Democrat congressman’s office staff and it was well-received along with this video:

There was not quite as much openness to the Vision Zero idea from my Republican senator’s staff. Hmmm . . . wonder what’s up with that?

I thought that we generally had a productive visit to my nation’s capital but came home yesterday with too many frustrations. And after going out for breakfast with my husband this morning to update him on what he had missed (because he had left DC before I did), I drove home and wept and yelled as I passed by the entrance to I-95 where we had started our fateful journey on the morning of May 4, 2013–wishing desperately that that day had never unfolded and taken my girls from me.

I also wished that somebody had let me cast a vote for Vision Zero when it might have meant the difference between life and death for Mary and AnnaLeah.

Please sign & share our Vision Zero Petition:  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

The latest Public Comments on the ANPRM for Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks

Truck Safety, , , , ,

Here are new comments posted on the Federal Register for

ANPRM for Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks

See attached file(s)” 
View Comment

Submitter Name: Lackore, Roger
Posted: 10/20/2015
ID: NHTSA-2015-0070-0062
Not sure how this is going to prevent people from driving into the rear of a truck… Maybe more money should be spent on educating drivers when they get their…”
View Comment

Submitter Name: Anonymous
Posted: 10/08/2015
ID: NHTSA-2015-0070-0061
Re: Conspicuity Rules. When the rules for class 8 vehicles were implemented, I operated a private fleet operating, primarily, east of the Mississippi river…”
View Comment

Submitter Name: Schafer, Robert
Posted: 10/08/2015
ID: NHTSA-2015-0070-0058
As a long-time transportation industry professional, it is my opinion that CMVs should not be exempt from “bumper height” or any other safety regulations. The…”
View Comment

Submitter Name: Gislason, John
Posted: 10/08/2015
ID: NHTSA-2015-0070-0060
I am not apposed to putting on reflective tape on the side rails or boxes of straight trucks, but as for the rear guard what is going to be the rule for…”
View Comment

Submitter Name: Johnson, Paul
Posted: 10/08/2015
ID: NHTSA-2015-0070-0059

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

When will we figure out that somebody’s getting away with murder?

Truck Safety, , , ,

The EPA apparently has more authority than NHTSA to give out consequences that really hurt the corporate pocketbook:

“It Took E.P.A. Pressure to Get VW to Admit Fault”
By BILL VLASIC and AARON M. KESSLER SEPT. 21,  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/business/it-took-epa-pressure-to-get-vw-to-admit-fault.html

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for example, can impose a maximum penalty of $35 million on an automaker that flouts safety regulations — a relatively low sum for a company like General Motors, which last year paid such a fine for a defect that has now been linked to at least 124 deaths.

By contrast, under the Clean Air Act, Volkswagen, the world’s largest automaker, could be fined as much as $37,500 for each recalled vehicle, for a possible total penalty of as much as $18 billion.

“The Clean Air Act statutory scheme gives E.P.A. more power and flexibility to move more quickly than N.H.T.S.A.,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, who has studied the government’s response to auto safety issues. “E.P.A. also seems more tough-minded and savvy about how to be effective in this arena.” . . .

And why do we let this go on and on and on? Why does corporate profit always win out over human life? Can we blame it on ignorance–theirs or ours?

Michael Moore’s answer:  . . the cause of this tragedy is an economic system that places profit above everything else, including—and especially—human life. GM has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to make the biggest profits that it can. And if their top people crunch the numbers and can show that they will save more money by NOT fixing or replacing the part, then that is what they are going to . . . well do.   http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/17/justice-department-lets-giant-corporation-evade-prosecution-deaths-over-100-people

Maybe it’s time for a change. Maybe we need to recognize that companies and individuals who make decisions and take actions which lead to unnecessary deaths on our roads should be held accountable for their criminal negligence. Maybe we should use the word manslaughter (look it up). At the very least, they should get more than a slap on the wrist. It appears that merely appealing to their conscience is not going to do the trick.

The question is, Will we rise up and demand change? Wake up, America. It could be you or your loved one that ends up dead on the road because somebody else was allowed to get away with murder*.

IMG_4467

I suppose we’ll never know what all went into this result on May 4, 2013.  https://annaleahmary.com/2014/07/our-crash-was-not-an-accident/

* To escape punishment for or detection of an egregiously blameworthy act . . . to not be punished for bad behavior. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/get+away+with+murder

Interesting. . .Just saw this on facebook: “What about the [40,000] Americans who will die on the highway this year? . . . Why aren’t you up in arms about that? Or is dying in a car somehow moral?”  At 1:45 on this video: https://www.facebook.com/disturbreality/videos/vb.121420231235396/1140232616020814/?type=2&theater

[Note: You might want to inform yourself on the topics of “second collisions”  and Vision Zero because, although improving driver behavior is essential, we shouldn’t pretend that it is the only thing that needs to change when we look for how to end crash deaths.  http://tinyurl.com/pmtw66h  http://tinyurl.com/qdt7mog]

Sign & Share our Vision Zero Petition:  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Support Underride Research: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Truck industry, engineers & safety advocates comment on Truck Underride Protection for motorists, pedestrians & cyclists

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , ,

The Public Comment Period is Closed now for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks. I appreciate those who took the time to comment and I look forward to in-depth dialogue among these people and organizations at our Spring 2016 Underride Roundtable. You can find their published comments here:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

These include comments from:

With funds which we raise for underride research, we are hoping to cover the costs of the crash test for the innovative combined side & rear guard designed by this engineer, Aaron J. Kiefer MSME, PE . See his Comment:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0013

And we have been in correspondence with these two engineers in Australia who have researched solutions to deadly underride for 30 years.  Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre . See their Comments:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0021  & my posts on them:  https://annaleahmary.com/2015/09/australian-engineers-champion-the-cause-of-better-truck-underride-  protection/

Contrast their comments to the conclusion of the NTEA: “Based on the published data and expected benefits, there is no justification for requiring rear underride guards on single unit trucks.” Maybe they ought to watch this video from Australia.

Someone in Australia was asked this question: “So last year, 249 people died on our roads. What do you think would be a more acceptable number?”

See what he answered:

IIHS October 2014 Status Report CoverBefore & After Photos

Cover of IIHS Status Report on guards; photos of our car before/after

Support Underride Research to Prevent Unnecessary Deaths & Injuries.

Donate Now: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Australian engineers champion the cause of better truck underride protection

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

I have spoken and corresponded with George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta from the Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre in Sydney. I have also written about their work on underride protection in Australia.

Yesterday, I received from them a copy of their submission to the Public Comments on the Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks. It is worth a read to find out what is being said in other countries about this vital issue.

NHTSA-Docket-Submission-Grzebieta&Rechnitzer 20 Sept 2015

Here are some highlights:

    • Whilst there are force based design rules, e.g. in USA, Canada and Europe, it is apparent that these rules are inadequate. In our submission we strongly recommend crash test based performance requirements for under-run protection catering for both centred and off-set impact.
      Around 10 people per year on average are killed in Australia in rear under-run crashes resulting in horrific injuries such as decapitation.13 Yet the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS)14 for Underrun Protection publish by the Vehicle Safety Standards Branch at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in July 2009 recommended that only front under-run protection be applied to all rigid and articulated trucks. Their conclusion was that the cost-benefit ratio for frontal under-run barriers was greater than one whereas for side and rear under-run the benefit was negative, and hence such protection should not be mandated in an Australian Design Rule. Yet despite these numerous calls for changes over the past three decades, we continue to consistently kill people in such crashes, ignoring the fact that practical low cost effective under-run barriers can be fitted. That is the real unforgivable tragedy.
    • The Vison Zero and Safe System approach adopted by most of the world now and on which Towards Zero Deaths is anchored, boldly moves away from the economic- rationalist ‘cost-benefit’ models (cited in this Docket as still being used by NHTSA), to a humanistic more rational model. The important aspect of a ‘Vision Zero’ principle is that it introduces ‘ethical rules’ to guide the system designers. In other words:
      • Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society
      • Whenever someone is killed or seriously injured, necessary steps must be taken to avoid similar events.
    • The Authors of this submission would further point out to those at NHTSA considering how the Rear Impact Protection for Single Unit Trucks should be revised; they should consider placing themselves in the position of the gentleman being asked in the following Australian Government advertisement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsyvrkEjoXI&feature=youtu.be. This advertisement was commissioned and paid for by the Victorian State Government in Australia. We would ask the NHTSA staff responsible for this NPRM which members of their family would they allocate to die that would be acceptable to them and would meet the NHTSA cost benefit ratios being considered?

  • To break the impasse between safety stakeholders and regulators, the Authors of this submission have proposed to incorporate into the revision of the ASNZS3845.2 Australian Road Safety Barrier Systems and Devices a crash test performance requirement for rear under-run barriers for heavy trucks, shortly to be released for public comment. In that standard test requirements for under-ride barriers, called Truck Under-run Barriers (TUBs), has been developed and now included. We hope that this standard will be approved by committee members (members include Australian State Government regulators) and hopefully will be published in early 2016. The tests requirements are in part based on the US Manual for Assessing Road Hardware (MASH) and are presented below.
    We would strongly recommend that NHTSA consider such dynamic performance tests when they deliberate their development of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for under-ride barriers.
  • TUB’s are designed to prevent a vehicle impacting the rear of a stationary truck under-riding the back of the truck in a manner where the truck structure intrudes into the impacting vehicle’s occupant compartment. The TUB’s main function is to protect the occupants in the impacting vehicle.
  • If the car is designed to such ANCAP and IIHS test protocols with the maximum crashworthiness rating, it is likely that the occupants would not sustain serious injuries in a vehicle impacting such a TUB in the configurations shown in Figure 1.
  • The manufacturers of such TUBs and operators of heavy vehicles are encouraged to explore the application of energy absorbing systems for TUBs including rear air bags mounted on the rear of trucks.

This latter recommendation is relevant to our goal of seeking research money to provide to Dean Sicking whose proposal intends to do just that: explore the application of the SAFER Barrier — an energy absorbying system — to the prevention of truck underride tragedies.

Dean Sicking’s Research Proposal: Development of Trailer Underride Preventive Measures

As soon as their Public Comment is published, I will post a link so that you can read the entire document online for a better understanding of their detailed analysis and proposal for crash test based performance requirements for truck underride protection, for both centred and off-set impact, in contrast to the force based design rules in the current U. S. federal underride standards. The Australian recommendations are based on 30 years of research and experience. (Note: the document in its entirety can be accessed at the top of this post.)

The formal period for submission of Public Comments ends today, September 21, 2015. Upon the request of several groups, I made a request that the period be extended for a short time. That request is under consideration by the agency. All published Public Comments can be found at this site, which is updated as submissions are made:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta have, unfortunately, faced similar challenges in Australia in trying to persuade the powers that be to make rules which would prevent unnecessary and horrific deaths and injuries. However, they  are encouraged by potential upcoming changes in their country:

To break the impasse between safety stakeholders and regulators, the Authors of this submission have proposed to incorporate into the revision of the ASNZS3845.2 Australian Road Safety Barrier Systems and Devices a crash test performance requirement for rear under-run barriers for heavy trucks, shortly to be released for public comment. In that standard test requirements for under-ride barriers, called Truck Under-run Barriers (TUBs), has been developed and now included. We hope that this standard will be approved by committee members (members include Australian State Government regulators) and hopefully will be published in early 2016.

Other posts on their work include:

We look forward to working with George and Raphael at the Underride Roundtable in the Spring of 2016 and know that our country can greatly benefit from their expertise.

Underride Research Meme

WarsawINFilmPhotographer_MIMemoria_Film_063

Donate toward the  Underride Roundtable & Research Now: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Be a part of this timely push to prevent unnecessary deaths.

It could save someone you love.

Request for Extension of Public Comment Period on Single Unit Truck Rulemaking Process

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

After hearing that several groups were hoping that they could have more time (beyond the current deadline of September 21) to prepare a Public Comment on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks, I contacted NHTSA and filed a request to extend the Public Comment period.

The agency replied that they are considering my request. It usually takes at least 10 calendar days for such a process. I hope that this helps with providing useful information but does not lead to unnecessary delay of the needed rulemaking.

Trip North May 2015 035

Photo by me of a Single Unit Truck I saw on the expressway a few months ago.

Note the wimpy rear underride guard.

Donate now & support Underride Research to Prevent Underride and Save Lives:  https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Underride Guards: a topic of conversation on TruckingInfo.com

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , ,

Underride guards have been a topic of conversation over the months (many of them now since our crash) at TruckingInfo.com:

Why Better Underride Guards, and Maybe Other Stuff, Are Worth It
June 3, 2013,  http://www.truckinginfo.com/blog/trailer-talk/story/2013/06/why-better-underride-guards-and-maybe-other-stuff-are-worth-it.aspx

NHTSA to Issue New Rules on Underride Guards
July 11, 2014,  http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/safety-compliance/news/story/2014/07/nhtsa-to-issue-new-rules-on-underride-guards.aspx

NHTSA to Upgrade Truck Underride and Conspicuity Rules
July 20, 2015,  http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/fleet-management/news/story/2015/07/nhtsa-initiates-upgrade-of-truck-underride-and-conspicuity-rules.aspx

Crash Argues for Better Impact Guards, and Better Driving
August 14, 2015, http://www.truckinginfo.com/blog/trailer-talk/story/2015/08/rear-end-crash-argues-for-better-impact-guards-and-better-control-of-one-s-car.aspx

(Just a note: It doesn’t matter who is at fault in these kinds of crashes of a smaller vehicle into a larger truck; if the underride guards could prevent the smaller vehicle from riding under the truck, the tragedy of death and horrific injury could be avoided.)

Underride Research MemeSupport Underride Research/Donate Now: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/